Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, very much, Mr. President, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Agricultural Work Force Stability and Protection Act. This bill would make needed reforms to the so-called ``H-2A Program,'' the program intended by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow for a reliable supply of legal, temporary, immigrant workers in the agricultural sector, under terms that also provide reasonable worker protections, when there is a shortage of domestic labor in this sector. Last year, Senator Alan Simpson, then the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, and then this body as a whole, acknowledged the importance of this issue by agreeing to including in the Illegal Immigration Reform conference report some compromise language regarding the Sense of the Congress on the H-2A Program and requiring the General Accounting Office to review the effectiveness of the program. The language included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was essentially the same as language agreed to in the conference report on fiscal year 1997 Agriculture Appropriations. With these provisions, the Congress went on record twice on the importance of having a program that helps ensure an adequate workforce for agricultural producers. This is an issue that is of the utmost importance to this country's farmers and ranchers, especially in light of the impact that immigration reform will have on the supply of agricultural labor. There is very real concern among Idaho farmers and throughout the country that these reforms will reduce the availability of agricultural workers. Farmers need access to an adequate supply of workers and want to have certainty that they are hiring a legal work force. In 1995, the total agricultural work force was about 2.5 million people. That equals 6.7 percent of our labor force, which is directly involved in production agriculture and food processing. Hired labor is one of the most important and costly inputs in farming. U.S. farmers spent more than $15 billion on hired labor expenses in 1992--one of every eight dollars of farm production expenses. For the labor-intensive fruit, vegetable and horticultural sector, labor accounts for 35 to 45 percent of production costs. The competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, especially in the fruit, vegetable and horticultural specialty sectors, depends on the continued availability of hired labor at a reasonable cost. U.S. farmers, including producers of labor-intensive perishable commodities, compete directly with producers in other countries for market share in both U.S. and foreign commodity markets. Wages of U.S. farmworkers will not be forced up by eliminating alien labor, because growers' production costs are capped by world market commodity prices. Instead, a reduction in the work force available to agriculture will force U.S. producers to reduce production to the level that can be sustained by a smaller work force. Over time, wages for these farm workers have actually risen faster than non-farm worker wages. Between 1986-1994, there was a 34.6 percent increase in average hourly earnings for farm workers, while non-farm workers only saw a 27.1 percent increase. Even with this increase in on-farm wages, this country has historically been unable to provide a sufficient number of domestic workers to complete the difficult manual labor required in the production of many agricultural commodities. In Idaho, this is especially true for producers of fruit, sugar beets, onions and other specialty crops. The difficulty in obtaining sufficient domestic workers is primarily due to the fact that domestic workers prefer the security of full-time employment in year round positions. As a result the available domestic work force tends to prefer the long term positions, leaving the seasonal jobs unfilled. In addition, many of the seasonal jobs unfilled. In addition, many of the seasonal agricultural jobs are located in areas where it is necessary for workers to migrate into the area and live temporarily to do the work. Experience has shown that foreign workers are more likely to migrate than domestic workers. As a result of domestic short supply, farmers and ranchers have had to rely upon the assistance of foreign workers. The only current mechanism available to admit foreign workers for agricultural employment is the H-2A program. The H-2A program is intended to serve as a safety valve for times when domestic labor is unavailable. Unfortunately, the H-2A program isn't working. Despite efforts to streamline the temporary worker program in 1986, it now functions so poorly that few in agriculture use it without risking an inadequate work force, burdensome regulations and potential litigation expense. In fact, usage of the program has actually decreased from 25,000 workers in 1986 to only 17,000 in 1995. The bill I am introducing would provide some much-needed reforms to the H-2A program. I urge my colleagues to consider the following reasonable modifications of the H-2A program. First, the bill would reduce the advance filing deadline from 60 to 40 days before workers are needed. In many agricultural operations, 60 days is too far in advance to be able to predict labor needs with the precision required in H-2A applications. Furthermore, virtually all referrals of U.S. workers who actually report for work are made close to the date of need. The advance application period serves little purpose except to provide time for litigation. Second, in lieu of the present certification letter, the Department of Labor [DOL] would issue the employer a domestic recruitment report indicating that the employer's job offer meets the statutory criteria and lists the number of U.S. workers referred. The employer would then file a petition with INS for admission of aliens, including a copy of DOL's domestic recruitment report and any countervailing evidence concerning the adequacy of the job offer and/or the availability of U.S. workers. The Attorney General would make the admission decision. The purpose is to restore the role of the Labor Department to that of giving advice to the Attorney General on labor availability, and return decision making to the Attorney General. Third, the Department of Labor would be required to provide the employer with a domestic recruitment report not later than 20 days before the date of need. The report either states sufficient domestic workers are not available or gives the names and Social Security numbers of the able, willing and qualified workers who have been referred to the employer. The Department of Labor now denies certification not only on the basis of workers actually referred to the employer, but also on the basis of reports or suppositions that unspecified numbers of workers may become available. The proposed change would assure that only workers actually identified as available would be the basis for denying foreign workers. Fourth, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] would provide expedited processing of employers' petitions, and, if approved, notify the visa issuing consulate or port of entry within 15 calendar days. This would ensure timely admission decisions. Fifth, INS would provide expedited procedures for amending petitions to increase the number of workers admitted on 5 days before the date of need. This is to reduce the paperwork and increase the timeliness of obtaining needed workers very close to or after the work has started. Sixth, DOL would continue to recruit domestic workers and make referrals to employers until 5 days before the date of need. This method is needed to allow the employer at a date certain to complete his hiring, and to operate without having the operation disrupted by having to displace existing workers with new workers. Seventh, the bill would enumerate the specific obligations of employers in occupations in which H-2A workers are employed. The proposed definition would define jobs that meet the following criteria as not adversely affecting U.S. workers: 1. The employer offers a competitive wage for the position. 2. The employer would provide approved housing, or a reasonable housing allowance, to workers whose permanent place of residence is beyond normal commuting distance. 3. The employer continues to provide current transportation reimbursement requirements. 4. A guarantee of employment is provided for at least three-quarters of the anticipated hours of work during the actual period of employment. 5. The employer would provide workers' compensation or equivalent coverage. 6. Employer must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local labor laws with respect to both United States and alien workers. This combination of employment requirements would eliminate the discretion of Department of Labor to specify terms and conditions of employment on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the scope for litigation would be reduced since employers (and the courts) would know with particularity the required terms and conditions of employment. Eighth, the bill would provide that workers must exhaust administrative remedies before engaging their employers in litigation. Ninth, certainty would be given to employers who comply with the terms of an approved job order. If at a later date the Department of Labor requires changes, the employer would be required to comply with the law only prospectively. This very important provision removes the possibility of retroactive liability if an approved order is changed. As the Illegal Immigration Reform law is implemented, action on these H-2A reforms will be necessary in the coming months to avoid jeopardizing the labor supply for American agriculture. Therefore, I am introducing this bill at this time and invite and urge my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors. It is time to begin in earnest to discuss these issues and examine these vitally-needed reforms. I hope and expect the Senate will pass constructive legislation along these lines this year. Thank you, Mr. President. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today we begin a new Congress and an urgent environmental problem remains unresolved. Today I am reintroducing legislation to address the problem that continues to vex us--that is, how to address our Nation's high-level nuclear waste disposal. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 that is introduced today answers this problem and is responsible, fair, environmentally friendly, and supported by Members of both parties. Today, high-level nuclear waste and highly radioactive used nuclear fuel continues to accumulate at more than 80 sites in 41 States. Each year, as more and more fuel accumulates and our ability to continue to store this used fuel at each of these sites in a safe and responsible way diminishes. The only responsible choice is to support legislation that solves this problem by safely moving this used fuel to a safe, monitored facility in the remote Nevada desert. This answer will lead us to a safer future for all Americans. To facilitate our consideration of such legislation, Senator Murkowski and I along with 16 other cosponsors are introducing a bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. This legislation is identical to S. 1936 that passed the Senate toward the end of the past Congress. Unfortunately, that legislation was not acted upon by the other body nor signed into law. It is my intent to assure that is not the fate of this legislation. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on this bill on February 5 and will move to a speedy markup. I encourage the Senate and House to act quickly and to send it to the President for his signature. This bill contains all of the important clarifications and changes addressing the concerns that were raised prior to and during floor debate in the 104th Congress. This is legislation that will allow a solution for nuclear waste disposal. Let us move forward to enact it into law. I encourage the administration to work with us to make that a reality. This bill provides a clear and simple choice. We can choose to have one, remote, safe, and secure nuclear waste storage facility. Or, through inaction and delay, we can perpetuate the status quo and have 80 such sites spread across the Nation. The courts have made clear the Department of Energy must act to dispose of this material in 1998. It is irresponsible to shirk our responsibility to protect the environment and the future for our children and grandchildren. This Nation needs to confront its nuclear waste problem now. I urge my colleagues to support the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that has been forced by recent events. I am talking about President Clinton's proclamation of last fall declaring nearly two million acres of southern Utah a national monument. After the President's announcement, Senator Kempthorne and I introduced the Idaho Protection Act of 1996. That bill would have required that the public and the Congress be included before a national monument could be established in Idaho. When we introduced that bill, I was immediately approached by other Senators seeking the same protection. What we see unfolding before us in Utah ought to frighten all of us. Without including Utah's Governor, Senators, congressional delegation, the State legislature, county commissioners, or the people of Utah--President Clinton set off-limits forever approximately 1.7 million acres of Utah. Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, President Clinton has the unilateral authority to create a national monument where none existed before. And if he can do it in the State of Utah, he can do it in Idaho. In fact, since 1906, the law has been used some 66 times to set lands aside. I would note--with very few exceptions, these declarations occurred before enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which recognized the need for public involvement in such issues and mandated public comment periods before such decisions are made. Just as 64 percent of the land in Utah is owned by the Federal Government, 62 percent of Idaho is owned by Uncle Sam. What the President has done in Utah, without public input, he could also do in Idaho or any or the States where the Federal Government has a presence. With Senator Kempthorne as a cosponsor, I am once again introducing the Idaho Protection Act. This bill would simply require that the public and the Congress be fully involved and give approval before such a unilateral Presidential declaration of a new national monument could be imposed on Idaho. The President's action in Utah has been a wake-up call to people across America. While we all want to preserve what is best in our States, people everywhere understand that much of their economic future is tied up in what happens on their public lands. In the West, where public lands dominate the landscape, issues such as grazing, timber harvesting, water use, and recreation access have all come under attack by this administration seemingly bent upon kowtowing to a segment of our population that wants these uses kicked off our public lands. Everyone wants public lands decisions to be made in an open and inclusive process. No one wants the President, acting alone, to unilaterally lock up enormous parts of any State. We certainly don't work that way in the West. There is a recognition that with common sense, a balance can be struck that allows jobs to grow and families to put down roots while at the same time protecting America's great natural resources. In my view, the President's actions are beyond the pale and for that reason--to protect others from suffering a similar fate, I am cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the senior Senator from Utah for yielding but for a moment, to add to the comments that he has made as we have introduced S.J. Res. 1, or Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget constitutional amendment. The Senator from Utah has outlined, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, what we bring to the floor and the very critical nature of this debate. For a moment, let me humanize it, if I can, as to what it means to you, to me, to our children, and to the future of this country. Without a fiscally responsible Government that begins to rein in the growth of the Federal debt, already at 5.3 trillion dollars, and the ongoing year-after-year multibillion-dollar deficit that we have seen now for decades, the financial future of our country and its citizens is in doubt. There is no question today that the Congress and our President mouth the words of a balanced budget. We even work toward that by the very actions undertaken in writing the annual budgets. To guarantee it, to assure that when it gets to the time of making the tough votes to truly create a balanced budget, can we do it? Will we have the will of the people behind us and the support to accomplish that? I think that, absent a balanced budget amendment, the strength will not be there. I say that having watched this institution for many decades, and recognize that in the end when it really comes to the business of sorting out Government, the decisions become very tough. If we pass a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution this year, and if the States ratify it within the next 2 years, we will offer to the young people born today a unique opportunity. What is that opportunity? That they will pay in their lifetime $180,000 less in taxes, compared to what they would pay under the trends of the status quo, because of the rate at which our Government currently grows. We will offer to the average American family an opportunity unprecedented, and that is a better standard of living and actually more take-home pay and more dollars to spend, on an annualized basis, of more than $1,500 a year, in addition to their current income. We will offer our senior citizens the economic security we have promised them, by protecting Social Security and Medicare from the ravages of a massive debt and interest payments that crowd out all our other priorities. Let us remember, the debt is the threat to Social Security and to our seniors. When the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Idaho began to work to convince the Congress and the American people that a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget was necessary in the early 1980's, if it had passed at that time, if it had become part of the Constitution, the Concord Coalition and others have estimated that the average income per American family today would be $15,000 more than it currently is. I think, from that kind of fact, you begin to recognize the power and the importance of what we offer up today. You begin to recognize the very critical nature of what a $5.3 trillion debt really is, and how it is growing by $800 million a day and more than $9,000 a second. If this Senate is to stand in the shadow of today's work a decade from now and say that we did for our country what we thought was necessary to assure the American dream to our children, to be able to say to Americans that you will have the same unique opportunity that your forebears had, then we must make sure that we have produced, and locked in the requirement of, a Government that is fiscally responsible. What we offer today and what we will be debating in the coming weeks is a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution which assures that this body and the other, as well as the President and his budget office, must operate in a fiscally sound and responsible way. It is what the American people say is their No. 1 issue. It must be our No. 1 issue. I am pleased today to join as a cosponsor in this critical amendment and look forward to the debate in the coming weeks as we say to the American people, ``We have heard your message and we will fight to be fiscally responsible in the building and the maintaining of a federally balanced budget.'' I yield back to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee concerning a report on mining patents that was recently completed by the Department of the Interior.

Mr. CRAIG. I share your concern, and I note that the report provides a plan to process 90 percent of the mineral patent backlog in five years, which may or may not be effective. The Conference Report on H.R. 3610, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, extended the patent moratorium for fiscal year 1997. In your view has the Congress endorsed Secretary Babbitt's actions and his plan?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chairman for his kind words. In July, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee received a copy of a report from the Interior Department, entitled ``Five Year Plan for Making Final Determination on Ninety Percent of Grandfathered Patent Applications Pursuant to Public Law 104-134.'' My subcommittee has not yet fully analyzed the report that addresses the mineral patent moratorium which was enacted originally on September 30, 1994, for fiscal year 1995, and extended through fiscal year 1996 on April 25, 1996. I believe the Appropriations Committee received the report as well.

Mr. CRAIG. One final concern which I have is that the Interior Department may be construing the ``five-year'' schedule to clear the patent backlog as somehow shielding the Department from claims of unreasonable delay by individual patent applicants in the interim. Such a construction would be clearly contrary to our intent, which was to keep the patent application processing moving forward.

Mr. CRAIG. I agree, and I note further that the Congress is clearly not in a position to ratify or reject the Department's determinations regarding individual patent applications which are pending and are identified in the Secretary's report as ``grandfathered,'' or impliedly identified as not ``grandfathered'' by their absence on the list.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the distinguished Chairman for this colloquy.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation to provide the public with access to high quality outfitter and guide services on Federal lands. The public served are visitors to the remote and challenging backcountry of our national forests, public lands, wildlife refuges, national parks, and in a dew instances, lands managed by the Bureau of Reclamation. Many people lack the skills, equipment, and experience to visit the rugged areas found on our public lands. They depend upon the services of professional outfitters and guides for traveling into these areas, for their comfort and safety, and for gaining the memorable experiences that keep millions of people returning to these special places each year. The 374 small outiftter and guide businesses spread across my State of Idaho are stable businesses and substantial contributors to Idaho's economy. The total gross economic effect attributed to outfitting and guiding activities in Idaho is in excess of $100 million annually, benefiting many local motels, restaurants, retail stores, and a backcountry transportation network of charter air and bus companies. Because Idaho is a prime destination for American and international visitors, the typical Idaho outfitter does reasonably well in his or her business, with a net return of 10 percent of gross revenue, according to a study in 1993 by the University of Idaho's Department of Resource Recreation and Tourism. Nationally, the statistics are not as rosy. Studies indicate the outfitter and guide industry as a whole expect to net only 4.1 percent of their gross revenue. Nonetheless, these outfitter and guide services will attract a significant economic benefit--new money, if you will--to the rural communities and counties in which they operate. With the exception of concessioner law governing hospitality services at national parks, this Congress has never addressed the practices of the outfitter and guide industry and the needs of the millions of visitors who use these services on Federal lands. The outfitter and guide industry is a multifaceted venture. Idaho's cowboys are such an integral part of our culture that it's difficult to establish a date upon which they became part of the recreation industry. Idaho's whitewater industry traces back as an offshoot of surplus World War II rafts and has enjoyed booming growth since the end of the 1940's. Alongside these activities has developed a complex offering of hunting, fishing, hiking, llama packing, photography tours, outdoor skills training--anything needed to whet the appetite and meet the expectations of visitors to our State. It wasn't until 1982 that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management established a formal policy for the issuance and administration of outfitter and guide special use permits. But Bureau of Reclamation has only this year begun to develop such a policy with no input whatsoever from this Congress. Most outfitters will tell you that they have an excellent relationship with their agency partners. There is a clear emphasis in this partnership on high quality service to the public, resource protection and a fair return to the government for the opportunity of doing business on public lands. Over the past 4 years, however, an increasing number of outfitters and guides have witnessed steady deterioration of this professional relationship. That deterioration is occurring at the field level, undoubtedly as a consequence of agency reorganization, down-sizing, budget restraints, and decentralization of policy review. Individual problems are difficult to address in formal administrative procedures, because Congress has never created the fundamental principles to guide this relationship. Outfitters in my State also believe--and they make a credible case-- that there is an alarming surge of bias against commercial operations in congressionally designated wilderness and other backcountry management areas. As guiding services are eliminated or reduced in these areas, so go the opportunities for our own citizens and our international visitors to experience the American West in a manner reminiscent of the way Jim Bridger and Lewis and Clark once saw it. I am introducing legislation today to address this deficiency. I am introducing this legislation so a discussion can begin on an outfitter and guide policy. I will pursue a policy in the coming Congress. This bill begins a process of setting in place clear policy for agency managers to provide access to the Federal lands for that segment of the public that needs or desires the services of outfitters and guides. It expresses the intent of this Congress that those needs will be met through competition in the quality of services offered to the public, through responsible resource protection, and through a fair fee to the government. This bill also raises the bar and sets a higher standard for outfitter and guide performance in the next century. We want and need their investment in the training and equipment and facilities required by the public to visit backcountry. That's not a job the agencies can or should be doing. If outfitters are living up to their commitment to the public, their investment should be secured and good service rewarded by performance- based renewal of a right to operate. But I think Congress has been very clear in debating proposed concessions policy reform that satisfactory is just no longer good enough. Congress needs to give the agencies a clear signal that the bad and the mediocre are to be removed from a system upon which the American public relies for its use and enjoyment of recreation resources. Over the past 4 years, my colleague from Utah and my colleague from Arkansas have grappled with the unique and sometimes peculiar details of the outfitter and guide industry. Similarly my colleague from Alaska, who is also the author of concessions policy legislation, is very knowledgeable of the very large outfitter and guide industry in his State. I would hope that in the next Congress we can combine our efforts to meet the needs of a public who confront a very diverse choice of recreation opportunities on Federal lands. I am convinced that we err in attempting to squeeze these diverse operations into the same mold. There is a uniqueness in the outfitters and guide industry that deserves to be addressed separately. I want to assure my colleagues that my introduction of outfitter and guide legislation is not solely a reaction to their efforts. The possibility of this legislation has been a point of discussion among Idaho outfitters and myself for over 2 years. In the meantime, the hunch that the agency relationship was disintegrating has become a reality. Some far-ranging problems have been developing and have taken on clarity for an industry that is critically important to the economy of my State and most other Western States. We were perhaps short-sighted in not addressing the overall structure and operations of this industry in a more formal fashion at the beginning of this decade. I look forward in the coming months to detailed discussions of the steps to be taken in correcting these problems.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in preparation for renewed consideration of adding countries to the NAFTA and of fast-track legislation for this purpose, it is imperative, in my view, that action be taken to resolve a serious problem with the NAFTA: The NAFTA Chapter 19 dispute settlement system for antidumping duty and countervailing duty appeals. In August of last year, nine of my Senate colleagues, including the former majority leader and the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Finance, expressed serious concerns about Chapter 19 in a letter to then-U.S. Trade Representative Michael Kantor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I wish to emphasize that I share the concerns of the authors of this letter and believe that addressing this failed system must be a priority for U.S. trade policy. Under Chapter 19, appeals of determinations that imports are subsidized or dumped into the U.S. market were, for NAFTA countries, transferred from domestic courts to panels of private individuals, which include foreign nationals. The system was introduced in 1988 as a provisional compromise for the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement. Although serious reservations were expressed about Chapter 19 at that time, it was accepted on an interim basis with Canada only until disciplines against Canadian subsidies and dumping could be negotiated. Although no such unfair trade disciplines were agreed to, Chapter 19 was, unfortunately, extended to the NAFTA. Its inclusion was a key reason for my vote against that agreement. Chapter 19's infirmities are several. As the Justice Department indicated in 1988, there are major constitutional problems with giving private panelists--sometimes a majority of whom are foreign nationals-- the authority to issue decisions about U.S. domestic law that have the binding force of law. These panelists, coming from different legal and cultural disciplines and serving on an ad hoc basis, do not necessarily have the interest that unbiased U.S. courts do in maintaining the efficacy of the laws as Congress wrote them. Moreover, the ad hoc, fragmented nature of Chapter 19 decision-making can lead to contradictory outcomes, even with regard to a single instance of alleged unfair trade. In practice, Chapter 19 has revealed itself to be unacceptable. A foremost example is the Chapter 19 review of a 1992 United States countervailing duty finding that Canadian lumber imports benefit from enormous subsidies. Three Canadian panelists outvoted two leading United States legal experts to eliminate the countervailing duty based on patently erroneous interpretations of United States law-- interpretations that Congress had expressly rejected only months before. Two of the Canadian panelists served despite egregious, undisclosed conflicts of interest. The matter then was argued before a Chapter 19 appeals committee, and the two Canadian committee members outvoted the one United States member to once again insulate the Canadian subsidies from United States law. The U.S. committee member was Malcolm Wilkey, the former Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and one of the United States' most distinguished jurists. In his opinion, Judge Wilkey wrote that the lumber panel decision ``may violate more principles of appellate review of agency action than any opinion by a reviewing body which I have ever read.'' Judge Wilkey and former Judge Charles Renfrew--also a Chapter 19 appeals committee member--have since expressed serious constitutional reservations about the system. While some have claimed that Chapter 19 decides many cases well, its inability to resolve appropriately large disputes, and its constitutional infirmity, demand a remedy. Like my colleagues who wrote to Ambassador Kantor, I believe that something must be done about Chapter 19. I support returning appellate jurisdiction to the U.S. judiciary where it had long rested and still rests for non-NAFTA countries. Alternatively, Chapter 19 perhaps could be reformed to eliminate its constitutional and practical infirmities. It should, at minimum, be clear to executive branch officials that Chapter 19 cannot be extended to any additional country in its current form, be it Chile or any other NAFTA prospect. I look forward to working diligently in the upcoming Congress to correct this serious problem. Exhibit 1 August 21, 1995. Ambassador Michael Kantor, Trade Representative, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC. Dear Ambassador Kantor: In light of the advent of the new trade and dispute settlement rules in the agreements establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO), we are writing to express our concern with the current system for reviewing antidumping and countervailing duty cases under the

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about a provision of this bill which is very troublesome to me. I am talking about Section 318 of this bill which deals with Forest Service administration of log exports. I view it as unfortunate and unfair to my constituents that the prohibitions in Section 318 appear once again in bill language, as they do in the current year appropriations bill. I did not object to the provision the first time, but its re-appearance in the fiscal year 1997 bill does raise serious concerns. I know the chairman is aware of these concerns. Section 318 is the cause of a great deal of controversy within the forest products industry because it prevents implementation of the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990. Under the law, a review of sourcing areas relative to the export of logs is required after individual sourcing areas have been in place for 5 years. Sourcing areas are geographically defined areas within which companies which export their own private logs are permitted to also purchase Federal timber. Sourcing areas are required to be ``economically and geographically separated'' from those areas which produce export logs. The purpose is to prevent so-called ``substitution''--the illegal replacement of exported private logs with logs from Federal lands. The Forest Service had begun the 5-year review, but the prohibition in the 1996 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation bill stopped it cold. Section 318 delays it further, at least through fiscal year 1997. Mr. President, it is my impression is that there is a fairly broad belief in the industry that the current sourcing area boundaries are illogical in many respects. Neither can they be properly monitored to prevent substitution. Sharply reduced Federal timber supply has dramatically changed historic market patterns and log flow. Companies desperate for logs to keep their mills operating are buying logs in distant locations and hauling them hundreds and hundreds of miles. It may well be the case that sourcing areas are already obsolete. Under the circumstances of today's log market, it is difficult to imagine how log export zones can be kept ``economically and geographically separated,'' to quote the law, from sourcing areas. One way to find out is to permit the Forest Service to reopen public comment and proceed with a review of sourcing areas as the law requires. That is what should happen. However, it will not, because of Section 318. So, I intend to take some jurisdiction on this issue in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and open the record myself through hearings and testimony in the next Congress. The current state of affairs begs for change, and those changes must not be indefinitely delayed. I regret that I differ with my colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, on this matter. But I know I can count on him to cooperate in reaching an equitable solution. He has already indicated he wishes to accomplish the same. This concludes my remarks regarding Section 318.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that would make needed reforms to the so-called H-2A Program, the program intended by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow for a reliable supply of legal, temporary, immigrant workers in the agricultural sector, under terms that also provide reasonable worker protections, when there is a shortage of domestic labor in this sector. Let me start by once again thanking my good friend, Al Simpson, the senior Senator from Wyoming, who agreed to including in the Illegal Immigration Reform conference report some compromise language regarding the Sense of the Congress on the H-2A Program and requiring the General Accounting Office to review the effectiveness of the program by the end of the year. Al Simpson is a true friend, a statesman, and a dedicated public servant. The Senate will miss him and I will miss our working together on a regular basis. The language included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is essentially the same as language agreed to in the conference report on fiscal year 1997 Agriculture Appropriations. With these provisions, the Congress now has gone on record twice on the importance of having a program that helps ensure an adequate work force for agricultural producers. This is an issue that of the utmost importance to this country's farmers and ranchers, especially in light of the impact that immigration reform will have on the supply of agricultural labor. There is very real concern among Idaho farmers and throughout the country that these reforms will reduce the availability of agricultural workers. Farmers need access to an adequate supply of workers and want to have certainty that they are hiring a legal work force. In 1995, the total agricultural work force was about 2.5 million people. That equals 6.7 percent of our labor force, which is directly involved in production agriculture and food processing. Hired labor is one of the most important and costly inputs in farming. U.S. farmers spent more than $15 billion on hired labor expenses in 1992 $1 of every $8 of farm production expenses. For the labor-intensive fruit, vegetable and horticultural sector, labor accounts for 35 to 45 percent of production costs. The competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, especially in the fruit, vegetable and horticultural specialty sectors, depends on the continued availability of hired labor at a reasonable cost. U.S. farmers, including producers of labor-intensive perishable commodities, compete directly with producers in other countries for market share in both U.S. and foreign commodity markets. Wages of U.S. farmworkers will not be forced up by eliminating alien labor, because growers' production costs are capped by world market commodity prices. Instead, a reduction in the work force available to agriculture will force U.S. producers to reduce production to the level that can be sustained by a smaller work force. Over time, wages for these farm workers have actually risen faster than non-farm worker wages. Between 1986-1994, there was a 34.6 percent increase in average hourly earnings for farm workers, while non-farm workers only saw a 27.1 percent increase. Even with this increase in on-farm wages, this country has historically been unable to provide a sufficient number of domestic workers to complete the difficult manual labor required in the production of many agricultural commodities. In Idaho, this is especially true for producers of fruit, sugar beets, onions and other specialty crops. The difficulty in obtaining sufficient domestic workers is primarily due to the fact that domestic workers prefer the security of full-time employment in year round positions. As a result the available domestic work force tends to prefer the long term positions, leaving the seasonal jobs unfilled. In addition, many of the seasonal agricultural jobs are located in areas where it is necessary for workers to migrate into the area and live temporarily to do the work. Experience has shown that foreign workers are more likely to migrate than domestic workers. As a result of domestic short supply, farmers and ranchers have had to rely upon the assistance of foreign workers. The only current mechanism available to admit foreign workers for agricultural employment is the H-2A program. The H-2A program is intended to serve as a safety valve for times when domestic labor is unavailable. Unfortunately, the H-2A program isn't working. Despite efforts to streamline the temporary worker program in 1986, it now functions so poorly that few in agriculture use it without risking an inadequate work force, burdensome regulations and potential litigation expense. In fact, usage of the program has actually decreased from 25,000 workers in 1986 to only 17,000 in 1995. The bill I am introducing would provide some much-needed reforms to the H-2A program. I urge my colleagues to consider the following reasonable modifications of the H-2A program. First, the bill would reduce the advance filing deadline from 60 to 40 days before workers are needed. In many agricultural operations, 60 days is too far in advance to be able to predict labor needs with the precision required in H-2A applications. Furthermore, virtually all referrals of U.S. workers who actually report for work are made close to the date of need. The advance application period serves little purpose except to provide time for litigation. Second, in lieu of the present certification letter, the Department of Labor [DOL] would issue the employer a domestic recruitment report indicating that the employer's job offer meets the statutory criteria and lists the number of U.S. workers referred. The employer would then file a petition with INS for admission of aliens, including a copy of DOL's domestic recruitment report and any countervailing evidence concerning the adequacy of the job offer and/or the availability of U.S. workers. The Attorney General would make the admission decision. The purpose is to restore the role of the Labor Department to that of giving advice to the Attorney General on laboravailability, and return decision making to the Attorney General. Third, the Department of Labor would be required to provide the employer with a domestic recruitment report not later than 20 days before the date of need. The report either states sufficient domestic workers are not available or gives the names and Social Security Numbers of the able, willing and qualified workers who have been referred to the employer. The Department of Labor now denies certification not only on the basis of workers actually referred to the employer, but also on the basis of reports or suppositions that unspecified numbers of workers may become available. The proposed change would assure that only workers actually identified as available would be the basis for denying foreign workers. Fourth, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] would provide expedited processing of employers' petitions, and, if approved, notify the visa issuing consulate or port of entry within 15 calendar days. This would ensure timely admission decisions. Fifth, INS would also provide expedited procedures for amending petitions to increase the number of workers admitted on 5 days before the date of need. This is to reduce the paperwork and increase the timeliness of obtaining needed workers very close to or after the work has started. Sixth, DOL would continue to recruit domestic workers and make referrals to employers until 5 days before the date of need. This method is needed to allow the employer at a date certain to complete his hiring, and to operate without having the operation disrupted by having to displace existing workers with new workers. Seventh, the bill would enumerate the specific obligations of employers in occupations in which H-2A workers are employed. The proposed definition would define jobs that meet the following criteria as not adversely affecting U.S. workers: 1. The employer offers a competitive wage for the position. 2. The employer would provide approved housing, or a reasonable housing allowance, to workers whose permanent place of residence is beyond normal commuting distance. 3. The employer continues to provide current transportation reimbursement requirements. 4. A guarantee of employment is provided for at least three-quarters of the anticipated hours of work during the actual period of employment. 5. The employer would provide workers' compensation or equivalent coverage. 6. Employer must comply with all applicable federal, state and local labor laws with respect to both U.S. and alien workers. This combination of employment requirements would eliminate the discretion of Department of Labor to specify terms and conditions of employment on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the scope for litigation would be reduced since employers (and the courts) would know with particularity the required terms and conditions of employment. Eighth, the bill would provide that workers must exhaust administrative remedies before engaging their employers in litigation. Ninth, certainty would be given to employers who comply with the terms of an approved job order. If at a later date the Department of Labor requires changes, the employer would be required to comply with the law only prospectively. This very important provision removes the possibility of retroactive liability if an approved order is changed. With the Illegal Immigration Reform bill on its way to becoming law, action on these H-2A reforms would be necessary early next year to avoid jeopardizing the labor supply for American agriculture. Therefore, it is fully my intention to reintroduce this bill at the start of the 105th Congress. I am introducing it at this time, at the end of the 104th Congress, so that those in Congress and around the country who are interested in this issue can get a head start on discussing these issues and examining these vitally-needed reforms. Again, I urge my colleagues to examine this bill, hopefully with an eye toward supporting these reforms when they are reintroduced in the next Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that would make needed reforms to the so-called H-2A Program, the program intended by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow for a reliable supply of legal, temporary, immigrant workers in the agricultural sector, under terms that also provide reasonable worker protections, when there is a shortage of domestic labor in this sector. Let me start by once again thanking my good friend, Al Simpson, the senior Senator from Wyoming, who agreed to including in the Illegal Immigration Reform conference report some compromise language regarding the Sense of the Congress on the H-2A Program and requiring the General Accounting Office to review the effectiveness of the program by the end of the year. Al Simpson is a true friend, a statesman, and a dedicated public servant. The Senate will miss him and I will miss our working together on a regular basis. The language included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is essentially the same as language agreed to in the conference report on fiscal year 1997 Agriculture Appropriations. With these provisions, the Congress now has gone on record twice on the importance of having a program that helps ensure an adequate work force for agricultural producers. This is an issue that of the utmost importance to this country's farmers and ranchers, especially in light of the impact that immigration reform will have on the supply of agricultural labor. There is very real concern among Idaho farmers and throughout the country that these reforms will reduce the availability of agricultural workers. Farmers need access to an adequate supply of workers and want to have certainty that they are hiring a legal work force. In 1995, the total agricultural work force was about 2.5 million people. That equals 6.7 percent of our labor force, which is directly involved in production agriculture and food processing. Hired labor is one of the most important and costly inputs in farming. U.S. farmers spent more than $15 billion on hired labor expenses in 1992 $1 of every $8 of farm production expenses. For the labor-intensive fruit, vegetable and horticultural sector, labor accounts for 35 to 45 percent of production costs. The competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, especially in the fruit, vegetable and horticultural specialty sectors, depends on the continued availability of hired labor at a reasonable cost. U.S. farmers, including producers of labor-intensive perishable commodities, compete directly with producers in other countries for market share in both U.S. and foreign commodity markets. Wages of U.S. farmworkers will not be forced up by eliminating alien labor, because growers' production costs are capped by world market commodity prices. Instead, a reduction in the work force available to agriculture will force U.S. producers to reduce production to the level that can be sustained by a smaller work force. Over time, wages for these farm workers have actually risen faster than non-farm worker wages. Between 1986-1994, there was a 34.6 percent increase in average hourly earnings for farm workers, while non-farm workers only saw a 27.1 percent increase. Even with this increase in on-farm wages, this country has historically been unable to provide a sufficient number of domestic workers to complete the difficult manual labor required in the production of many agricultural commodities. In Idaho, this is especially true for producers of fruit, sugar beets, onions and other specialty crops. The difficulty in obtaining sufficient domestic workers is primarily due to the fact that domestic workers prefer the security of full-time employment in year round positions. As a result the available domestic work force tends to prefer the long term positions, leaving the seasonal jobs unfilled. In addition, many of the seasonal agricultural jobs are located in areas where it is necessary for workers to migrate into the area and live temporarily to do the work. Experience has shown that foreign workers are more likely to migrate than domestic workers. As a result of domestic short supply, farmers and ranchers have had to rely upon the assistance of foreign workers. The only current mechanism available to admit foreign workers for agricultural employment is the H-2A program. The H-2A program is intended to serve as a safety valve for times when domestic labor is unavailable. Unfortunately, the H-2A program isn't working. Despite efforts to streamline the temporary worker program in 1986, it now functions so poorly that few in agriculture use it without risking an inadequate work force, burdensome regulations and potential litigation expense. In fact, usage of the program has actually decreased from 25,000 workers in 1986 to only 17,000 in 1995. The bill I am introducing would provide some much-needed reforms to the H-2A program. I urge my colleagues to consider the following reasonable modifications of the H-2A program. First, the bill would reduce the advance filing deadline from 60 to 40 days before workers are needed. In many agricultural operations, 60 days is too far in advance to be able to predict labor needs with the precision required in H-2A applications. Furthermore, virtually all referrals of U.S. workers who actually report for work are made close to the date of need. The advance application period serves little purpose except to provide time for litigation. Second, in lieu of the present certification letter, the Department of Labor [DOL] would issue the employer a domestic recruitment report indicating that the employer's job offer meets the statutory criteria and lists the number of U.S. workers referred. The employer would then file a petition with INS for admission of aliens, including a copy of DOL's domestic recruitment report and any countervailing evidence concerning the adequacy of the job offer and/or the availability of U.S. workers. The Attorney General would make the admission decision. The purpose is to restore the role of the Labor Department to that of giving advice to the Attorney General on laboravailability, and return decision making to the Attorney General. Third, the Department of Labor would be required to provide the employer with a domestic recruitment report not later than 20 days before the date of need. The report either states sufficient domestic workers are not available or gives the names and Social Security Numbers of the able, willing and qualified workers who have been referred to the employer. The Department of Labor now denies certification not only on the basis of workers actually referred to the employer, but also on the basis of reports or suppositions that unspecified numbers of workers may become available. The proposed change would assure that only workers actually identified as available would be the basis for denying foreign workers. Fourth, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] would provide expedited processing of employers' petitions, and, if approved, notify the visa issuing consulate or port of entry within 15 calendar days. This would ensure timely admission decisions. Fifth, INS would also provide expedited procedures for amending petitions to increase the number of workers admitted on 5 days before the date of need. This is to reduce the paperwork and increase the timeliness of obtaining needed workers very close to or after the work has started. Sixth, DOL would continue to recruit domestic workers and make referrals to employers until 5 days before the date of need. This method is needed to allow the employer at a date certain to complete his hiring, and to operate without having the operation disrupted by having to displace existing workers with new workers. Seventh, the bill would enumerate the specific obligations of employers in occupations in which H-2A workers are employed. The proposed definition would define jobs that meet the following criteria as not adversely affecting U.S. workers: 1. The employer offers a competitive wage for the position. 2. The employer would provide approved housing, or a reasonable housing allowance, to workers whose permanent place of residence is beyond normal commuting distance. 3. The employer continues to provide current transportation reimbursement requirements. 4. A guarantee of employment is provided for at least three-quarters of the anticipated hours of work during the actual period of employment. 5. The employer would provide workers' compensation or equivalent coverage. 6. Employer must comply with all applicable federal, state and local labor laws with respect to both U.S. and alien workers. This combination of employment requirements would eliminate the discretion of Department of Labor to specify terms and conditions of employment on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the scope for litigation would be reduced since employers (and the courts) would know with particularity the required terms and conditions of employment. Eighth, the bill would provide that workers must exhaust administrative remedies before engaging their employers in litigation. Ninth, certainty would be given to employers who comply with the terms of an approved job order. If at a later date the Department of Labor requires changes, the employer would be required to comply with the law only prospectively. This very important provision removes the possibility of retroactive liability if an approved order is changed. With the Illegal Immigration Reform bill on its way to becoming law, action on these H-2A reforms would be necessary early next year to avoid jeopardizing the labor supply for American agriculture. Therefore, it is fully my intention to reintroduce this bill at the start of the 105th Congress. I am introducing it at this time, at the end of the 104th Congress, so that those in Congress and around the country who are interested in this issue can get a head start on discussing these issues and examining these vitally-needed reforms. Again, I urge my colleagues to examine this bill, hopefully with an eye toward supporting these reforms when they are reintroduced in the next Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask that the following letter of congratulations recognizing the 85th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China be printed in the Record. In light of the efforts at political reform and recent economic successes of the Republic of China, it is appropriate that we honor this important milestone. The letter follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. President Lee Teng-hui, c/o Foreign Minister John H. Chang, the Republic of China, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. Dear President Lee: We wish to extend our greetings to you, Vice President Lien Chan and Foreign Minister John H. Chang on the occasion of the 85th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China. In the last few years, Taiwan has impressed the world with economic success and political reform. We are well aware of your efforts in cooperating with us on matters of mutual interest. We are also aware of your recent campaign to rejoin the United Nations and other international organizations. As you seek to develop even better ties with the U.S. and shoulder more international responsibility, we wish you and your countrymen every success. Representative Jason Hu has done an excellent job of keeping members briefed on what has been happening in your country. He and his staff are to be commended for their efforts. Mr. President, may you and your people have a wonderful 85th anniversary celebration. Congratulations. Sincerely, Trent Lott. Thad Cochran. Don Nickles. Larry E. Craig.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this month marks the 20th anniversary of Congress' passage of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 [NFMA]. As many of you know, at the beginning of this Congress we embarked upon the first sustained oversight of the implementation of the NFMA, and the related statutes and regulations that govern the management of Federal forest lands--both those managed by the U.S. Forest Service, as well as by the Bureau of Land Management. During the course of last year and this, our subcommittee held 15 hearings, receiving testimony from over 200 witnesses concerning the status of Federal forest management. We then participated in, and reviewed the results of, the Seventh American Forest Congress before finalizing our conclusions. These conclusions are summarized in a June 20, 1996 letter that I sent to Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. Since the transmittal of this letter and its subsequent circulation, we have received a number of letters, calls, and comments from various individuals both inside and outside the federal land management establishment. Generally, they have been: First telling us that we are accurate in our diagnosis of the problems associated with federal forest management; and second urging us to address some of the problems and opportunities described in the June 20 letter. At the conclusion of our oversight hearings earlier this year we invited the administration to provide us with ideas about needed changes, basically making good on the commitment that Secretary Glickman made when he was confirmed by the Senate in March 1995. In the June 20 letter, we again offered to entertain the administration's proposals. On August 1 we received a response indicating that no proposals were ready to tender. We are distributing a copy of the letter and the Secretary's response to you. Last week, I met with the Secretary to see whether the administration was close to offering a proposal of any sort. Not surprisingly, they are not--nor will they be anytime before a certain date in November that seems to figure heavily in all of their planning. I also asked the Secretary whether he imagined that--if we were to introduce a legislative proposal before that magic date--we might have a thoughtful and substantive discussion detached from partisan wrangling and political recriminations? He thought not. What a surprise, but more the pity. Without being overly critical, I think we have to question both the seriousness of the administration's approach to these issues, and the depth of the Secretary's commitment to constructively engage Congress on Federal forest management. But I want to emphasize that my mind and my door are still open. As we move forward, we would still be happy to see a legislative proposal from the administration to put alongside what we propose. we must choose a coherent philosophy under which our Federal forest lands should be managed Today, I want to review the basic approach we took to our oversight task. In evaluating the need for change, we started by evaluating how well our current statutes are working. Then, having established that change is imperative, we stepped back and tried to evaluate the overall philosophy under which we want our Federal lands to be managed. We chose to reaffirm the multiple-use mandate that has guided the management of Federal forest lands since the early part of this century. We have refused to accede to the no-use philosophy that is currently being popularized by elements of the national environmental community and, to some extent, agents of this administration. We have chosen the former over the latter because any sentient being can see the results of the no-use philosophy on the land. Fires are burning out of control through forests that are inherently unhealthy because of stand conditions that have been allowed to deteriorate as a consequence of both simple administrative inaction, and a more basic and grievous confusion over the role of man in nature. The bill we will propose does not deal with the forest health issue alone. Rather, it will also deal with the health of the Forest Service and the other land managing agencies. It is our conclusion that the clear results of the implementation of no-use philosophies on the agencies have been as dramatic as the results of the application of similar philosophies on the land. Consider this--in over 15 hearings with 200 witnesses--no one supported the status quo. Let me repeat, no one from any walk, profession, interest group, or point of view provided any testimony that suggested Congress need not act to fix the current situation. In sum, the health of the Forest Service--or, more broadly, our Federal Government--as an enlightened advocate of professional resource management has reached a critical point. In an era of tightening Government budgets this might be the case even if this administration was not subjecting the agencies to unprecedented political interference. But, in fact, the amount of political interference that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are facing is extraordinary. Thus, as we summarize our general philosophy, we flatly reject the preservationist philosophy that the best thing we can do for our Federal forests is to walk away and leave them alone. Rather, we choose to: First, reaffirm and reinvigorate multiple- use management; second, restore the health of our forests and the morale of our professional forest managers; third, fashion forest policy on hope instead of fear; fourth, develop solutions instead of conflict; fifth, encourage education instead of litigation; sixth, rely upon science instead of stoking emotions; and seventh, employ human resources in environmental stewardship, instead of destroying them in the interest of environmental purism. our approach to this process has necessarily been time consuming When we initiated this oversight process two Marches ago, I remarked upon the novelty of Congress wading into an area where it has been absent from the field for so many years. I also noted that, if our oversight uncovered the need for significant changes, these changes would take time. Indeed, legislative changes of this nature always take more than one Congress to achieve. When you write the environmental history of this Congress I hope you will remember that we expected it to take awhile, but we will get the job done. I relish the opportunity to quote Senator Hubert Humphrey's remarks 20 years ago this week as he brought the conference report accompanying the 1976 National Forest Management Act to the Senate floor. He stated that: It is with a tremendous amount of pride and satisfaction that I offer this measure for the consideration of the Senate. It is a product of 3 years of work by four committees of this Congress, as well as more than a dozen public interest groups and business interests. These issues could not be viewed as the work of a single Congress or the result of an individual election, even then. They certainly cannot now. For those critical of Congress' efficiency, it is worth noting that the number of congressional committees has decreased, even as the panoply of interest groups has expanded exponentially. Generally speaking, significant change comes only through crisis or consensus. I would submit that, today, we have a consensus that the status quo is unacceptable. But there is not yet a shared sense of crisis, nor any specific agreement on an appropriate solution. Therefore, our proposal will represent a starting point to see if we can: First, build upon the only established consensus--that is, the status quo is unacceptable; and second, move toward some agreement on what kinds of appropriate solutions should be provided. By necessity, many parties will be involved in the deliberations that we will begin in a few weeks, and carry forward through the next Congress and perhaps beyond. But at the same time, many parties have already been involved in providing us useful insights that are reflected in the proposal we will circulate in the near future. Let me mention a few groups that have been involved and deserve recognition for the contributions made to date. First, I want to recognize the thousands of people involved in the Seventh American Forest Congress. Their coming together was a truly unique experience. I directed my staff to attend, and they benefitted greatly from the insights provided. We delayed introduction of this measure to benefit from their deliberations. I hope to continue this extraordinary dialog with this other Congress. Representatives of the environmental community have also been instrumental in providing both the backdrop for the discussions that have occurred in this Congress, as well as a number of specific suggestions for changes. While we do not agree with all they advocate, they nevertheless deserve the credit for elevating the public's interest in the state of our Federal forests. Third, I want to recognize the forest scientists that have begun to look at land management and ecosystem analysis at broader geographic scales. Many of the initiatives that have been pioneered by this group of devoted Forest Service and other Federal agency scientists over the last 4 years are going to be recognized and provided with a statutory basis. Fourth, I want to thank State and local officials who have provided considerable testimony about the current state of federalism, insofar as Federal resource management is concerned. They have suggested a number of improvements based upon their increasingly impressive capabilities to perform a number of the management functions that are currently entrusted solely to the diminishing number of Federal agency employees spread across the country. Fifth, I want to thank representatives of local, dependent communities and industries. I want to commend their patience in seeing us through these deliberations, while in many cases--and for justifiable reasons--they felt their concerns are of a more immediate nature. Finally and most importantly, I want to thank the Forest Service and other Federal agency employees who contributed so much to our oversight process both formally and informally. By elevating environmental considerations within the agency, Forest Service employees have made many of the changes that we will propose both reasonable and possible. There is less need now to use other Federal employees to police the work and commitment of Forest Service scientists, biologists, and land management professionals than there may once have been. For this, and for other efficiencies in better land stewardship that we will propose, Forest Service employees deserve considerable credit. I am also appreciative of the amount of time and effort that went into the development of agency testimony and support materials that provided the information necessary for our oversight and ongoing drafting processes. I deeply appreciate, the professionalism and commitment of these employees. I do not expect any of the above mentioned groups to be wholly or very satisfied--or, in a few cases, even remotely satisfied--with the proposal that we will unveil shortly. Nevertheless, all of their views were heard and in many ways reflected, even if not exactly the way they thought they would be. Now having reviewed the process that we used to develop the legislation, let me explain how we will proceed. Prior to meeting with the Secretary last week, I was prepared to introduce this measure immediately and start the process of discussing these ideas. The Secretary's responses to my questions have convinced me that this would result in little more than the most cynical exercise in political posturing at the present time. Therefore, I plan to wait and circulate this proposal immediately after the election. If the current administration returns, the invitation to come forward with their own proposal still stands. If not, I expect that their successors may well be more aggressive and communicative in their desire to proceed and address these issues. After I finish a little work I have back in Idaho, I will sponsor a series of workshops and/or hearings during the recess to secure specific comments and suggestions for change. I will also direct our staff to meet with interested groups to secure additional comments. I hope that we will then have an improved bill to introduce at the beginning of the next Congress in order to begin a more focused dialogue on legislation that I will strive to advance in a bi-partisan fashion. To this end, I look at the forthcoming proposal as a working draft-- even though I have been at it for 2 years. I urge people to review it carefully. I hope that, with a minimum amount of rhetorical overkill, they will tell us what they think the good parts and the bad parts are. I will not be seeking immediate support, and I will try to avoid immediate condemnation. This proposal is going to change--perhaps dramatically--as we listen and rework it to reintroduce in the next Congress.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill being introduced that has been forced by recent events. I'm talking about President Clinton's proclamation unilaterally declaring nearly two million acres of southern Utah a National Monument. After the President's announcement, Senator Kempthorne and I introduced the Idaho Protection Act. The bill would require that the public and the Congress be included before a National Monument could be established in Idaho. When we introduced that bill, I was immediately approached by other Senators seeking the same protection. What we see unfolding before us in Utah ought to frighten all of us. Without including Utah's Governor, Senators, congressional delegation, the state legislature, county commissioners, or the people of Utah--President Clinton set off limits forever approximately 1.7 million acres of Utah. Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, President Clinton has the authority to create a National Monument where none existed before. And if he can do it in the State of Utah, he can do it in Idaho, or Montana, or California. In fact, since 1906, the law has been used some 66 times to set lands aside. Just as 64 percent of the land in Utah is owned by the Federal Government, 62 percent of Idaho is also owned by Uncle Sam. Even New Hampshire, on the East Coast, has 14 percent of its land owned by the Federal Government. What the President has done in Utah, without public input, he could also do in Idaho or any of the States where the Federal Government has a presence. The bill that is being introduced would simply require that the public and the Congress be fully involved and give approval before such a unilateral administrative act could take effect on our public lands. Unfortunately, for the people of Utah, what the President has done there, should be a wake up call to people across America. While we all want to preserve what is best in our States, people everywhere understand that much of their economic future is tied up in what happens on the public lands in our States. In the West, where public lands dominate the landscape, issues such as grazing, timber harvesting, water use, have all come under attack by an administration seemingly bent upon kowtowing to a segment of our population that wants other uses off our public lands. But in addition to those in the West, everyone wants the process to be open and inclusive. No one wants the President, acting alone, to unilaterally lock up enormous parts of any State. That is not what Idahoans, or Utah natives or others. We certainly don't work that way in the West. There is a recognition that with common sense, a balance can be struck that allows jobs to grow and families to put down roots while at the same time protecting America's great natural resources. In my view, the President's actions are beyond the pale and for that reason--to protect others from suffering a similar fate, I am cosponsoring this bill. Thank you and I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill being introduced that has been forced by recent events. I'm talking about President Clinton's proclamation unilaterally declaring nearly two million acres of southern Utah a National Monument. After the President's announcement, Senator Kempthorne and I introduced the Idaho Protection Act. The bill would require that the public and the Congress be included before a National Monument could be established in Idaho. When we introduced that bill, I was immediately approached by other Senators seeking the same protection. What we see unfolding before us in Utah ought to frighten all of us. Without including Utah's Governor, Senators, congressional delegation, the state legislature, county commissioners, or the people of Utah--President Clinton set off limits forever approximately 1.7 million acres of Utah. Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, President Clinton has the authority to create a National Monument where none existed before. And if he can do it in the State of Utah, he can do it in Idaho, or Montana, or California. In fact, since 1906, the law has been used some 66 times to set lands aside. Just as 64 percent of the land in Utah is owned by the Federal Government, 62 percent of Idaho is also owned by Uncle Sam. Even New Hampshire, on the East Coast, has 14 percent of its land owned by the Federal Government. What the President has done in Utah, without public input, he could also do in Idaho or any of the States where the Federal Government has a presence. The bill that is being introduced would simply require that the public and the Congress be fully involved and give approval before such a unilateral administrative act could take effect on our public lands. Unfortunately, for the people of Utah, what the President has done there, should be a wake up call to people across America. While we all want to preserve what is best in our States, people everywhere understand that much of their economic future is tied up in what happens on the public lands in our States. In the West, where public lands dominate the landscape, issues such as grazing, timber harvesting, water use, have all come under attack by an administration seemingly bent upon kowtowing to a segment of our population that wants other uses off our public lands. But in addition to those in the West, everyone wants the process to be open and inclusive. No one wants the President, acting alone, to unilaterally lock up enormous parts of any State. That is not what Idahoans, or Utah natives or others. We certainly don't work that way in the West. There is a recognition that with common sense, a balance can be struck that allows jobs to grow and families to put down roots while at the same time protecting America's great natural resources. In my view, the President's actions are beyond the pale and for that reason--to protect others from suffering a similar fate, I am cosponsoring this bill. Thank you and I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today is National POW/MIA Recognition Day and I rise to honor those brave Americans whose fate remains uncertain. As we reflect not only on those courageous servicemembers who so valiantly went off in defense of their country, we should also pause and remember the families and loved ones of those who never returned. The family who received definite notice that a loved one was positively killed in action could mourn and grieve and learn to cope with life alone; but those American families whose loved ones were missing, prisoners, or unaccounted for, bear an additional burden--the burden of uncertainty. They cannot bury their loved ones and work through the grief that comes with loss. They live with doubt, denial, and hope that somehow their son, husband, brother, or father will some day come home. There are 90,769 American servicemembers unaccounted for from wars in the 20th century; 1,648 from World War I, 78,794 from World War II, 8,177 from Korea, and 2,150 from Southeast Asia. We have made extensive efforts to gain full accounting for all these servicemembers. We aggressively continue our talks with the Governments of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos to gain information about the servicemen who went there but did not return. Those efforts continue and have resulted in information about a few of our unaccounted-for servicemen and the recovery of 20 sets of remains between October 1995 and March 1996. Recent efforts with North Korea have also provided long overdue information about missing Americans. Additionally, we recovered the remains of a World War II hero this year, allowing his family finally to say their last farewells. However, we must not allow these small successes to make us complacent. We must continue our efforts and view the successes of today not as an end, but as a beginning in our efforts to gain more information in the upcoming years. Today, as we stop to look at the POW/MIA flag which flies not only in the rotunda of our Nation's Capitol but all around this great country, I hope all Americans will pause and remember with pride, sadness, and hope for the future, the valiant efforts of these brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who answered the call.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon President Clinton stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon and proclaimed, by Executive order, through the National Antiquities Act, the designation of a national monument in southern Utah of 1.7 million acres. Was his action illegal? No. It certainly was not, or it does not appear to be at this moment. What is frustrating to those of us in the West who have large expanses of public land is that the President sought no counsel, did not even consult with the Senators from Utah until the very last minute, did not talk to the Governor, to the State legislators or to the county commissioners in whose counties this large expanse of 1.7 million acres was involved. He simply stood on the banks or the edge of the Grand Canyon and proclaimed--yes, this is a device that was used by President Roosevelt who set aside the Grand Canyon years ago; it was a device that was oftentimes used prior to the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act or the Federal Land Use Management Act, NEPA and FLMPA, because there was no certain public process to ensure the protection of valuable lands or, more importantly, to involve the public in them. The Congress simply had not moved in that direction at that time when the National Antiquities Act came about. That is not the case today. In my opinion, the President yesterday standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon violated his public trust in failing to openly and publicly involve all of the necessary people in making this decision and making sure that private rights, property rights, water rights, grazing rights, mining rights, all of those kinds of things, were taken into consideration. In fact, I stood at a press conference yesterday afternoon in which the Democrat Congressman from whose district this large expanse of land was proclaimed by the President yesterday, and he said that at 11 o'clock the night before he was on the phone with the President saying, ``But, Mr. President,'' and the President was saying, ``Oh, don't worry. We will take care of you here and we will take care of you there. We will protect hunting rights.'' Well, Mr. President, those kind of things do not exist in a national monument. You do not allow hunting. You do not allow grazing. You do not allow mining. Yet, this President, in the dark of night, in the wee hours before he was planning this great publicity event for his reelection, was telling the Democrat Congressman, ``I will take care of you,'' after the fact. Now, the reason that was happening is because this President sought no public process. As certainly the Presiding Officer knows, over the last good number of years we have looked at a lot of public properties. We spent 10 years designating over 5 million acres of land in southern California as wilderness. I went to California three times in public hearings. It was thoroughly debated on the floor. All of the rights were taken care of. Finally, this Congress acted and designated as wilderness a large chunk of the southern California desert. However, every issue was taken into consideration prior to that happening. That simply did not happen yesterday with this President. He was interested in the sound bite and the evening news and his politics and the campaign. He trampled all over the rights of citizens and all over the public process. I am saddened by that. It is for that reason today I am introducing legislation that would deny him that right in the State of Idaho. I hope other Senators would join with me who have large expanses of public land that now might be at risk, because this President, for his environmental political gains, would select another piece of property. All I am saying is that the National Antiquities Act does not apply in Idaho unless there is a public process and unless the Congress agrees or consents or authorizes. What is important here is that I am not denying what the President did. What I am denying is his right to do it in the back rooms in the dark of night, even with his own Secretary of Interior last Friday and through the weekend not being able to say that this, in fact, was going to happen. It was the chief of staff of the White House, Leon Panetta, who finally called the Senators from Utah just before it happened and announced that it was going to happen. That should not happen. We want public process. This President has pounded us on public process. We will have public process in Idaho. I am not denying that some lands in Idaho might one day be selected as a national monument. But what I am saying is that the citizens of the State of Idaho, the Governor of the State of Idaho, the county commissioners, the congressional delegation, and this Congress, because it's public land, will participate in the process of making those decisions. We don't want this President, or any President, running roughshod over the State of Idaho, or any other State for that matter.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon President Clinton stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon and proclaimed, by Executive order, through the National Antiquities Act, the designation of a national monument in southern Utah of 1.7 million acres. Was his action illegal? No. It certainly was not, or it does not appear to be at this moment. What is frustrating to those of us in the West who have large expanses of public land is that the President sought no counsel, did not even consult with the Senators from Utah until the very last minute, did not talk to the Governor, to the State legislators or to the county commissioners in whose counties this large expanse of 1.7 million acres was involved. He simply stood on the banks or the edge of the Grand Canyon and proclaimed--yes, this is a device that was used by President Roosevelt who set aside the Grand Canyon years ago; it was a device that was oftentimes used prior to the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act or the Federal Land Use Management Act, NEPA and FLMPA, because there was no certain public process to ensure the protection of valuable lands or, more importantly, to involve the public in them. The Congress simply had not moved in that direction at that time when the National Antiquities Act came about. That is not the case today. In my opinion, the President yesterday standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon violated his public trust in failing to openly and publicly involve all of the necessary people in making this decision and making sure that private rights, property rights, water rights, grazing rights, mining rights, all of those kinds of things, were taken into consideration. In fact, I stood at a press conference yesterday afternoon in which the Democrat Congressman from whose district this large expanse of land was proclaimed by the President yesterday, and he said that at 11 o'clock the night before he was on the phone with the President saying, ``But, Mr. President,'' and the President was saying, ``Oh, don't worry. We will take care of you here and we will take care of you there. We will protect hunting rights.'' Well, Mr. President, those kind of things do not exist in a national monument. You do not allow hunting. You do not allow grazing. You do not allow mining. Yet, this President, in the dark of night, in the wee hours before he was planning this great publicity event for his reelection, was telling the Democrat Congressman, ``I will take care of you,'' after the fact. Now, the reason that was happening is because this President sought no public process. As certainly the Presiding Officer knows, over the last good number of years we have looked at a lot of public properties. We spent 10 years designating over 5 million acres of land in southern California as wilderness. I went to California three times in public hearings. It was thoroughly debated on the floor. All of the rights were taken care of. Finally, this Congress acted and designated as wilderness a large chunk of the southern California desert. However, every issue was taken into consideration prior to that happening. That simply did not happen yesterday with this President. He was interested in the sound bite and the evening news and his politics and the campaign. He trampled all over the rights of citizens and all over the public process. I am saddened by that. It is for that reason today I am introducing legislation that would deny him that right in the State of Idaho. I hope other Senators would join with me who have large expanses of public land that now might be at risk, because this President, for his environmental political gains, would select another piece of property. All I am saying is that the National Antiquities Act does not apply in Idaho unless there is a public process and unless the Congress agrees or consents or authorizes. What is important here is that I am not denying what the President did. What I am denying is his right to do it in the back rooms in the dark of night, even with his own Secretary of Interior last Friday and through the weekend not being able to say that this, in fact, was going to happen. It was the chief of staff of the White House, Leon Panetta, who finally called the Senators from Utah just before it happened and announced that it was going to happen. That should not happen. We want public process. This President has pounded us on public process. We will have public process in Idaho. I am not denying that some lands in Idaho might one day be selected as a national monument. But what I am saying is that the citizens of the State of Idaho, the Governor of the State of Idaho, the county commissioners, the congressional delegation, and this Congress, because it's public land, will participate in the process of making those decisions. We don't want this President, or any President, running roughshod over the State of Idaho, or any other State for that matter.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will speak no more than 5 minutes, but I ask unanimous consent Senator Kennedy follow me for up to 15 minutes.